> How would he seek to do that without having a majority in Congress?
Why would he be the first Presidential candidate in history to not seek to have a Congressional majority supporting his policy objectives elected alongside himself?
(Sure, he probably won't get that, and he'll probably have to compromise with the Congress he actually has. But that shouldn't stop him from trying to build as much support as possible for his actual policy goals.)
> Both parties shat all over him during his entire campaign, so he owes them not just nothing, but less than nothing, hence the promise to institute the congressional term limits and anti-lobbying laws.
How will he pass laws without the support of at least 50% of Congress?
>“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”
I understand his line of thinking, but the question is could he pass that law? He has a substantial amount of money that could be spent on lobbying, media, etc. But how do you get people who have spent a career chasing power to sign a law that will strip them of that power?
> If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises.
Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service.
But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Because it will never pass with a Republican majority so he can pretend to take a stand for the public without any actual effect that would upset business interests.
> If he were to be elected he would have a very strong mandate to fight for the reforms he proposes -- a strong enough mandate that Congress might be forced to adhere to it... A Democratic congressperson or senator who voted against such reforms would surely be risking his/her job.
Note peoples' diverging approval ratings between Congress as a whole and their own Congresspersons. Each Congressperson could find a local reason to nitpick over, and thus vote against, a measure they and the country broadly support.
> he accomplished rather little as a president, certainly far less than he could have, because he filled his cabinet with blithering yes men, Rather than a cohesive team that could strategize
I agree that his cabinet was a mess, but he also had a firmly GOP congress his first two years that gave him incredible backing and they passed a fair amount of legislation because congressional GOP leadership are very organized.
Now that the GOP controls the Supreme Court and quite likely will control congress in the next cycle, the next Republican president is going to have an unprecedented amount of power.
> Is he still in the race or is he just trying to steer the Democratic party policy?
He's still officially in the race, and there's extreme circumstances one can imagine where he might be able to actually win the nomination, but mostly he is focusing on shaping the party through the platform, for mobilizing people to run for office, etc.
> presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators
And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?
Congress is gridlocked. Incumbents almost never lose their seats. The people who care enough to vote and support the issues are already voting as hard as they can.
This announcement? This is him doing what he can, both in terms of his legal ability to change things, as the chief executive, and in terms of using the bully pulpit, making clear where his and his administrations' priorities lie.
Basically, it sounds like you're saying "if the President can't force the legislation he wants to materialize and get through a Congress that is historically dysfunctional, that means he doesn't really care about the issue."
> Hypothetically, what would have happened if he got way more votes and won the presidency?
Just to be clear, getting more votes doesn't mean you win the presidency. You have to win the electoral college.
> Does that immediately free him from prison
No.
> or would he need to formally pardon himself first?
He would need to pardon himself.
Just to add, a president can only pardon federal convictions, not state convictions. Debs was convicted of federal charges though so he would have been able to pardon himself.
> Could he even do that?
There has been debate over the last couple of years and no answer has been agreed upon, though it likely is due to the current situation. The only way is for a president to try it.
From the Constitution:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Ultimately the Constitution does not state that a president cannot pardon himself so as long as it is not for impeachment he probably could, but I'm not a lawyer so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
> Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas
Does that sound as a positive quality for the presidential candidate?
I don't know much about american politics in particular, but I always presume that the role of the president is based on finding compromises between different parties, slightly nudging them to what he believes is right, and making the whole political machine works.
To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president sounds like a good way to get your government completely locked. Even if you think that any other candidate is evil and this one is fighting for what you believe for, it still doesn't sound like a good idea.
You are obviously a very smart guy, jjoonathan. Why do you suppose the Democrats didn't even propose this when they had 60 Senate votes, the Presidency and the House? If its a 101 level problem why do you think that is?
> he has several options at his disposal (such as threatening to resign if congress won't bend on this or playing hardball in return on every other subject)
I think it would be tremendously unfair to his voters if he compromised his ability to work on the issues they do care about (health care, the budget, etc), for an issue they don't care about.
>Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the precedent of removing a president from office iff it is seen as a partisan move. The removal of Trump without widespread Republican support (as opposed to a small defecting faction) might be seen as precedent for a higher frequency of partisan impeachments - a danger to be weighed against (in my not-very-objective opinion) the dangers of a Trump presidency.
We already have a one-party state in which the Republican Party plays partisan hardball, as much as possible, to prevent elections from altering their control over the government. Why not fight back for once?
> One of my fantasies is becoming elected president and creating a constitutional amendment against minimum wage.
The President is the single weakest elected official at the federal level (and weaker than many at the state level) in terms of a Constitutional amendment, having no role at all in proposing or ratifying them, so its a silly fantasy for reasons beyond the viability of such an amendment itself.
Why would he be the first Presidential candidate in history to not seek to have a Congressional majority supporting his policy objectives elected alongside himself?
(Sure, he probably won't get that, and he'll probably have to compromise with the Congress he actually has. But that shouldn't stop him from trying to build as much support as possible for his actual policy goals.)
reply